"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
 

That's the single issue on the ballots in a special election happening today in Scotland. The polls closed about a minute ago. We should know the result of the vote in a few hours. What are your thoughts on this momentous occasion?

The poll votes are secret, as in all good elections. You may reveal your vote in your post (or no).

Yes it should, and it probably will, if not now then at some time in the future, and it should rid itself of the monarchy too.

Thanks for your response, Rhianne. Are you Scottish? I'm not, of course, but I still voted in the poll. The coverage of this very big story has been scant where I live. A new country?! Come on! How often does that happen? South Sudan was the last "new country", if you don't count the chunks of Ukraine Putin keeps hammering loose.

I voted (in this poll) that I didn't think they should become an independent country and that I didn't think that this vote would result in an independent country. My main reasoning was that national clout, for both (an independent) Scotland and the UK would be diminished by ... what's the word here? In the US, "secession" would be the word. But I don't chafe at all from the reins of political power held in London.

I would love to hear more from you, and from others. Limey, I'm looking at you... :)

There should be a 'No it shouldn't, but yes it will' option for balance.

I hope they vote no. But I would fully understand any Scot who voted yes.

My typing mistake. That is what the fourth entry SHOULD read. Sorry. :facepalm:


if there's a moderator that can make such a change, I'd be much obliged. Entry number four should read:

"No it should not, but yes it will"

I know nothing about it, but I did read the Outlander series.

my info is a bit outdated... but if I was a Scot, I'd want to be Sovereign.

Yes they should;
1- Break free of England.
2- Invade and subjugate England
3- Force all Englishmen to wear kilts with no underwear.
:vikingsmi

I don't give a %^&*. I don't live in the UK any more, t'ain't my business. People have not left me alone about this today. It was barely even on my radar before last week. Gut reaction/feeling is No, how on earth would they survive as an independent nation, but I know nothing.

4 of 32 authorities reporting and the result is 57% no and 43% yes. The turnout has averaged a "disappointing" (HA!) 78%.

More results in an hour.

5th authority reporting, 50.6 no, 49.4% yes. The closest result yet. This in an authority expected to vote yes. (sorry, I missed the name of the authority)

Now 13 of 32 local authorities reporting, overall ratio at this point: 53% no and 47% yes. The only local authority to vote in favor of secession was Dundee, and that large region moved the national count much closer to even.

Falkirk went 58k no to 50k yes. It is said to be something of a bellwether area, being between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Those two cities contain a large percentage of the population of the country and their totals will have a proportionally large effect on the


Angus reporting now: 80k total votes, 45k no, 34k yes.

Aberdeen: 144k total votes, 81% turnout. 59k yes, 84k no.

No country running total at this time.

national indications:

No's lead increasing. But by the not the wide margin indicated by polls only a couple weeks ago.

56% no, 44% yes. 15 authorities reporting. This is the spread of about 6 weeks ago.

raucous cheering

North lannatshire (sp): yes by a narrow margin (4k votes)

Glasgow: 366k votes cast, 79% turnout. 194k yes, 169k no


country totals about 55% no, 44% yes.

six authorities remaining, all expected to vote no.

YES needs another 465k votes to make it to 50% plus one. unlikely.

I am a bit embarrassed to be part of a nation that voted against its own independence. I am a Yes voter feeling a little raw today.

I could cope with that. After all, I do have the legs for it.

They go all the way to the ground.:D

I can understand that.

Personally, this was the result I was hoping for - close enough run to force real and significant change, and hopefully kickstart a true devolution of power from Westminster out to the regions of England, as well as the countries of the UK. But not an actual end to the union of the countries.

Selfish, I know - but Scotland leaving the union would fundamentally change what it means to me to be British (in terms of my national identity - I realise Scotland would always be British in terms of being on the landmass of Great Britain).

I watched a tv debate about it a few days ago and heard someone put forward a socialist argument in favour of the No vote. It was the first time I've heard a genuinely convincing one. Neil Oliver, the archaeologist. He really impressed me. It was in response to the idea that Scotland could effectively become independent from the Tory led economy and be more able to tackle poverty and build a more socially inclusive society. His argument was that we are, whatever our national identities, one island - inextricably linked through our cultures and history - different parts of one family - and he found the idea that Scotland might become an enclave of hope and social change, thought interesting, also a way of turning its back on the rest of that family - that there are cities all over the island that face poverty and distress, with many people unhappy with the way Westminster governs. The biggest reason for hope though, he argued, was the massive percentage of people who got involved, registered to vote (and in the end did vote) - if that could be replicated across the whole island, we could force real change for all of us.

The way I see it - the problem isn't that Scotland is ruled by England - it's that the whole of the Britain is governed by Westminster. Scotland is a nation, and it is part of a union of nations. But that should be reflected in the way it is governed. My ideal would be something far closer to a federal union of independent nations than what we now have. And I think the whole process of the referendum will force that to happen.

To me: Scotland didn't vote 'against independence', but for union.

Quick point: @ Bruce - just to be clear - we didn't become the United Kingdom because England invaded and conquered Scotland. The king of Scotland inherited the English throne and united the two crowns under him.

The whole 'British' project - the empire building, the cultural and economic explosion was all led by the Scottish. We'd never have been the power house we were without the Scottish at the fore. They led all of it. They were the mainstay of the army, the colonial expeditionaries, the cultural rennaisance, all of it. Left purely to the English, Welsh and Irish we'd have been nothing.

Limey, maybe you should encourage the people of Arran to become independant. ;)

Many of us Yes voters in Scotland felt that if we seceded then we'd have been able to bring about change quicker which we hoped would serve as a catalyst for the rest of the UK. One way to explain this was, as they say in airplane safety videos, put on your own oxygen mask before helping anyone else. So, not turning our backs on the rest of the family but helping ourselves so that we could be better able to help everyone else.

I think that argument has merit.

Many who voted Yes had no idea how quickly the economic complexity, damage, and harm would have been created. Too many assumed economic activity would have continued unabated. Too many assumptions without first learning how deeply economic activity affects virtually all other parts of life.

So what would by have called the new currency? A Gall in honor of emotional reasoning that required it?

But that was an unknowable, tw. That's something that couldn't possibly be known until after the fact - one way or another. There's nothing to say that it would have led to financial collapse. Neither side of that argument could truly say they knew which way it would go. And, though I believe the continued union offers more opportunity for strength and growth, I also think Scotland would have been perfectly able to be a strong economy alone.

This is what Neil Oliver had to say about it - and I pretty much sums up my own thinking on it, thoug much more eloquently:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ink-small.html

I have two conflicting thoughts that can be summed up with two images from American history.

Independence, yeah!
Attachment 49099

Divided, we fall.
Attachment 49100

Kind of conflicted. Both sides have good points. But with Scotland, it's none of my business.

The thing is though, America sought and gained independence from a political state thousands of miles away and which ithad no input into. It was entirely one sided.

Scotland, England and Wales all exist together on a small island - and we've been intermingling, squabbling, uniting and dividing for thousands of years. Our cultures are inextricably linked. I totally understand that the Scottish feel that they are ruled by a southern nation with whom they have little in common. but that also holds true for the north of England - the culture of the North of England, Newcastle, Lancashire and Yorkshire, has far more in common with the culture of Scotland than it does with the culture of London. At the borders (which have shifted many times over th years) there is very much a hybrid culture.

Many of us in the North of England want the economic and political power to be devolved outwards to the regions, rather than concentrating in the South as it does now.

Then why isn't my name MacGregor? :eyebrow:

That wouldn't make sense.
That's a possible and plausible scenario. However if the dickheads prevail...
Link

There was never any good reason to assume that an independent Scotland wouldn't be economically viable. That was all pure scaremongering as far as i can see and damn near lost the No campaign for them. Nor would there have been any reason for vindictiveness had they voted for independence.

My reasons for being glad they didn't, are wholly to do with culture and history as well as a general feeling that we are stronger as a union than as entirely separate states.


No idea m'dear - but the reality is that the union was effectively originally a Scottish led project. The history of England and Scotland is full of conflict and war and unfairness, but there is a tendency for people, mainly outside the British Isles, to see the United Kingdom in terms of Robert the Bruce and William Wallace - in reality the UK was led in England, by Scots.

More like ex-pat, anti-haggis, pants wearing traitors, who outlawed my family under penalty of death, for 200 years.
If Scotland produced significant potatoes, the truth would be more evident. http://cellar.org/2012/bwekk.gif

From Bruce's link:

Salmond wanted to have full currency union with the rUK and have the Bank of England as lender of last resort.

When it was made plain by all three major parties at Westminster that it was out of the question, he threatened that Scotland would default on its debt.

That's pragmatic and moderate, isn't it?

Salmond is an economist by profession but it doesn't seem to have dawned on him that no other country or institution would lend money to a government disinclined to settle its debts.

Link again

Both sides did some posturing and there were veiled threats. I don't think any of that would have borne out, personally. Europe does not want to encourage fragmentation - which forcing Scotland to stay out of Europe surely would have done - it would have sent a dangerous message to others who want independence from nation states within Europe. What Europe needs is for those states to remain inside the union, even if they do so as separate states.

I also think that the whole matter of currency would have been resolved amicably- it would be in the best interests of both Scotland and the rUK to do so.

I think there's one really strong lesson from all of this: people should get a chance to decide. If a state within a state wants independence then the people of that state should have a chance to make that decision for themselves - whatever the outcome. Though there was bluster and bluff on both sides, it was a remarkably peaceful process - there was very little bad blood between the two sides at a grass roots level and the sheer number of people who got involved, on both sides of the debate - registering for the vote, discussingand debating the main issues - and then turning out to vote - mostly done in good humour is a credit to Scotland. However the vote went it would have been a lesson in democracy.

I want you Scots to go out there and give me 110%.
OK, coach.

hahahahahahahaha

too soon?
 

Groundskeeper Willie: It won't last. Brothers and sisters are natural enemies. Like Englishmen and Scots! Or Welshmen and Scots! Or Japanese and Scots! Or Scots and other Scots! Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland!

lol

Listening to the live coverage last night of the announcements of the results of the voting frequently included a number of rejected ballots and one of the reasons for rejection was voting yes and no on the same ballot.

As threats go, this one wasn't particularly veiled:


Scottish independence: Jim Sillars warns of 'day of reckoning'


Scotland expected to leave the UK but take with them the currency and the Bank of England's protection as lender of last resort.

Mr Salmond kept banging on about how it was 'Scotland's Pound as well'. No, Mr Salmond, it's the UK's Pound and when you leave the UK you leave its currency.

If bare faced cheek was an Olympic sport, he'd have been a gold medallist.

well - on the nationalisation issue I kind of agreed with them :P

That wasn't a threat against the rUK - that was about companies.

But then I am an old socialist!

*chuckles*

ahuh.

I am guessing tnen that your ancestors were part of the 45ers.

The 45 rebellion was not a battle between the English and the Scots - it was a battle between the old line of the monarchy (catholic) versus the new line ofthe monarchy (protestant). It was, at its core, a religious conflict and there were sympathies on both sides in England and Scotland. It gets played out as a nationalist conflict because the Highland Scots saw it that way - they were predominantly supporters of the original catholic line and saw the conflict in terms of a push for Scotish nationhood, though in fact what they were seeking was a return of the House of Stuart to the British throne. And there was certainly an element of English nationalism on the other side, who saw the conflict in terms of putting down a 'Scottish' rebellion. But there were catholic monarchists in England too (tories) and there were protestant suppporters of the new line in Scotland (mainly in the lowlands).

It was a vicious conflict - but one of the things that made it so vicious was that the catholic supporters of the old line drew military support from the French against the rest of Britain. This was right in the middle of the War of the Austrian Succession - with the British fighting the French on the continent. As far as many in Britain were concerned (Scottish and English)this was treason. British soldiers, French and Scottish were engaged in a bloody war against the French forces, and there was a general fear of a French invasion at this time.

The way the Jacobites were treated (and indeed the way catholics in general were treated) was truly terrible. The protestant majority were terrified of a return to an absolutist monarch in line with the other catholic monarchs of Europe, and in particular the French king - they had only recently shaken off absolutist monarchy in favour of a parliamentary system with the king at least partially subject to and his powers limited by that parliament. They also feared that the return of the House of Stuart would effectively allow a 'puppet' king for the French (given his reliance on French support) to sit on the British throne.

The Jacobites bringing in French support and inviting the French to invade England on their behalf heightened that sense of danger from catholic absolutism. The timing of it, when most of the British army was on the continent fighting the French and their allies heightened the sense of the Jacobites as traitors.

So much so that it heralded another two hundred years of anti-catholic sentiment in Britain.

In reality it wasn't even the Scotish Highlanders who invited the French in - it was the English Tories. They were ardent supporters of the old monarchy, both in terms of many of them being catholics but also in terms of being traditionalists (they had opposed the settlement that brought in the protestant line as a break from the natural line of succession).

Things are rarely as simple as they appear at first glance - doubly so for pretty much anything that happens in the British Isles :p


This gives a decent potted history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_rising_of_1745

The result of the uprising, whicih ended in the appallingly bloody Battle of Culloden was that the British government sought to ensure such an uprising never happened again. Because the Stuart powerbase in britain was primarily in the Highlands of Scotland, actions were very much focused on the Highland Scots - there was an act passed to remove the heritable jurisdictions from Scottish lords, and the wearing of traditional highland dress was prohibited.

It gets remembered in terms of a Scottish battle against the English for independent Scotland - but that's not what it was at the time. The Highland Scots were not attempting to break away from the union - they were supporting an attempt to restore the original Scottish monarchy to the British throne. Their support was garnered in part by calls to a sense of Scottish nationalism.

Everything I need to know about the Battle of Culloden I learned from reading the Outlander series. ;)

Bah http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif Those pussified lowlanders were nothing but a bunch of English Dandy wannabes, I tell you, traitors.

Nessie knows!

ha!

For anyone interested in the historical perspective this is a really interesting series on Youtube. Linda Colley, features in these and she is a brilliant historian (her book Britons: Forging the Nation, is one ofthe best accounts of how the union formed and the various tensions at its core - she also recently did a very good series on radio4 and an accompaying book called Acts of Union and Disunion. She's one of my favourite historians of Britishness and empire).

Each chapter of this series is only around 15 mins. I'll just post the first three - as they're probably the most relevant to this current conversation, but I highly recommend the whole series.

Part 1: Uniting the Kingdom



Part 2: The Jacobite Threat



Part 3: Becoming British

Oh, and I've just realised what Bruce meant by 'why is myname not McGregor?':facepalm:

I take it that was one of the banned surnames?

Also - I incorrectly described the tories as many of them being catholics - some of them were - most of them were Anglican.

The religious divisions in 18t century Britain were waaaay complex and I have never quite got a handle on them :P

I realize you're making a reasonable and rational explanation in an area you are particularly well versed in, but since I don't have a rational rebuttal, I'll just post Willie. :p:

Well, you know what they say bruce: there's always room for willy.

:thumb: :lol2:

I really could not believe that as a country we could not vote for self determination and independence, I voted yes not because I hate the English but I wanted something better.
What we'll get now is more Tory policies and Tory Governments that the people of Scotland do not want and do not vote for, the labour party in the UK is a busted flush and the rest are not worth bothering about.
Project Fear worked, spread scare stories and half truths and the older generation shat it.
They are now squabbling and retracting on the supposed extra powers that were promised because they are lying bastards that don't give a shit about Scotland it's just Westminster clutching on to power and the last remnants of the British Empire.
But they have started something the Yes voters are not going away, the cause of independence is not going away, we lost the first battle but the war ain't over yet

C'mon Carruthers, out with it you pussy. http://cellar.org/2012/bwekk.gif

@Bruce. To hear is to obey.... :)


And England will never again get a Labour Government they do not want and for whom they did not vote.

I make the above observation from the standpoint of a disinterested third party. I used to be a floating voter.

I am now a floating abstainer.

Most of England doesn't want this government. They're in because of the South - they generally lean further right in politics than the north.

I'd rather have a Labour government than this shower of shit.

We had ten years of relative prosperity under Labour - they didn't break the economy, a world wide recession that started on an entirely different continent did that.

I'd rather not have their war mongering - but if the government is going to go to war I'd rather it not be against the unemployed, the low paid and the public sector.

Perhaps if I could expand my observation, England (rUK) would almost certainly end up with a permanent Conservative Government, essentially an elected dictatorship.

Similarly Scotland would probably end up with a permanent SNP Government.

Would it be an improvement on the current situation?

*shudders*

Most of us would let Scotland be our 51st state; but, the Kentucky bourbon industry is agin it.

Once upon a time, Iraq was to become America's 51st state. When the bills started to exceed $3 trillion, then an American public finally caught on.

$3 trillion and we didn't get a single ounce of whiskey out of them. What could we have been thinking? :smack:

Yes, but well placed people sold the some, for a tidy profit.